Donna M.B. Anderson v. Adams et al

Filing 18

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Requests for Preliminary Injunction re 3 & 8 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/2/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONNA M.B. ANDERSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01931-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ECF Nos. 3, 8]

17

Plaintiff Donna M.B. Anderson is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction; therefore, this action

19

was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 3.)

21

Plaintiff filed a second request for order to show cause and/or preliminary injunction on January 30,

22

2017. (ECF No. 8.)

23

I.

24

DISCUSSION

25

In the first request, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction be issued because she will suffer

26

irreparable harm to her religious practices and rights if Defendants remove tabernacle and electric

27

candle from the chapel. (ECF No. 3, Mot. at 1.)

28
1

1

In the second request, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction be issued because she will suffer

2

irreparable harm to her relief practices and rights if Defendants remove tabernacle and electric candle

3

from the chapel. In addition, Plaintiff requests appointment of an effective interim chaplain or

4

Catholic volunteer, Defendants be compelled to maintain a neutral stances toward Catholic inmates,

5

and to prevent Plaintiff and all Catholic inmates from transfer to another institution during the

6

pendency of this action. (ECF No. 8, Mot. at 1-2.)

7

The purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to preserve the

8

status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to

9

intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of

10

Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction [or

11

temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely

12

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

13

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

14

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

15

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

16

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

17

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A

18

party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that

19

motion is unsupported by evidence.

Mazurek v.

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

21

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it

22

an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 102 (1983); Valley Forge

23

Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If

24

the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in

25

question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the

26

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly

27

drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least

28

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”
2

Plaintiff is advised that, “a court has no power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation

1
2

unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research,

3

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (emphasis added); S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir.

4

2007). In this case, no Defendant has yet made an appearance, as the Court has yet to determine if

5

Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for relief. Whatever merit there might otherwise be to Plaintiff’s

6

requests for a preliminary injunction, at this juncture the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the

7

Defendants and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take any action or refrain from any action.

8

Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110; Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for

9

injunctive relief shall be denied, without prejudice.

10

II.

11

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s requests for

12
13

injunctive relief be denied, without prejudice.

14

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

15

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

16

being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

17

Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

18

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

19

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

20

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

24

February 2, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3